Legal Opinion

Thatcher v. Salvo

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided July 25, 2005No. 54837-9-IPublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

¶1 According to the Default provision of the Residential Real Estate Purchase and Sale Agreement (REPSA), if the buyer “fails, without legal excuse, to complete the purchase of the Property,” the seller is entitled to retain the earnest money deposit.1 The buyer, Michael J. Salvo, appeals the trial court’s decision that the sellers, David and Carol Thatcher, were entitled to retain his earnest money deposit as damages under the Default provision of the REPSA. We conclude the financing contingency in the REPSA provides a legal excuse for Salvo’s failure to complete the purchase, and Salvo’s…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Reynolds v. HicksWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Reynolds v. HicksWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. US Life Credit Life Ins. v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  4. U.S. Life Credit Life Insurance v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Rorvig v. DouglasWashington Supreme Court · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Quinn v. Cherry Lane Auto Plaza, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  2. Herring v. Texaco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  3. Herring v. Texaco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2006
  4. North Oakes Manor, App/cross/resp v. 2nd Half Llc, Res/cross-appCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  5. Northwood Estates, Llc v. Lennar Northwest, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API